SENDIST appeal - Working document - To what extent and until when can changes be made before the hearing?

[ChrisInNeed]

A few questions please re the WD

1. Once a sentence is underlined (i.e. accepted by both parties) can either party subsequently undo it if they realise they have made a mistake or is an "underline" final once made and cant be undone?

1. Similarly once a Parent adds a sentence or deletes something and it hasn't been underlined i.e accepted by the LA can they undo this during a subsequent iteration or is a change "final" once made and only "new" items can be introduced?

1. Who "owns" the WD i.e. has primary responsibility for submitting it to SENDIST? Is it the LA or parent or neither? If it is the LA, what if they refuse to make a 'late' change requested by the parent? Can the parent then submit its own version of the WD to the Tribunal?

4.My understanding is that the WD is essentially fluid and flexible and both the LA and the parents can make a change until the hearing date
Is this correct or are changes "frozen" 10 working days before the hearing date? If the latter how can a parent raise any "late" changes missed previously?

I had a look at the "WD Guidance note" I received from SENDIST and it appears to be a bit ambiguous on this point.

It says "The Tribunal will require an electronic and hard copy of the working document. These should arrive at least ten working days before the final hearing date."
but it also says
"No time is set aside for the parties to negotiate on the day of the hearing so the working document must be considered, prepared and distributed before the day of the hearing."

Sorry I can't remember but are you being represented at the hearing?

The hearing essentially is to discuss and seek tribunal to rule on the points over which there is still disagreement. We did not see the WD until the day of the hearing by which time parts 2 and 3 were pretty much agreed and debate was over severity and setting required.

Sorry I can't remember but are you being represented at the hearing?

The hearing essentially is to discuss and seek tribunal to rule on the points over which there is still disagreement. We did not see the WD until the day of the hearing by which time parts 2 and 3 were pretty much agreed and debate was over severity and setting required.

So far doing it with help from the SEN support groups (SOS!SEN/IPSEA) and of course the MNSN stalwarts.

The LA have sent me their proposed version of the changes. Despite concerns raised with the statement, still vague ("Benefit from..." etc) and very little quantification of provision. I am in the process of updating it to reflect my proposed changes but am not clear of the rules of the game and hence the questions.

KeepOn: If you did not see the WD until the day of the hearing , what was the process used to agree Parts 2 & 3. Was this emails back and forth between you and the LA? Did you have a meeting with them? Was this helpful?

Thanks

We kept working on it including on the day before the hearing started. Yes by email etc. and face to face on day. The LA should provide the last version with copies for everyone. It can be photocopied on day if any last minute changes.do check its right version / have any previous changes to hand.
The tribunal will only look at wording which is not agreed and will go through each line and ask each side why disagree. Even at that stage either side can concede something previously disagreed on.
Panel may take evidence from witnesses eg LA refused to put ds had challenging behaviour. We have evidence he did including LA EP observation he had pushed a child in face at nursery and panel asked nursery witness if they has seen episodes behaviour. LA then had to concede were behavioural problems but still refused define these as challenging. Our rep offered 'maladaptive behaviour' and everyone agreed that so we could move on. So you can keep negotiating to end. Be aware not wasting lots time better spent elsewhere once panel got message about ds behaviour we knew we could cover it via provision so didn't need to make too much fuss about not getting challenging in. Having double spaced version helps as can get typed up wrong by sendist if not legible. LAs tend to drop a lot of petty objections once forced justify them. If can't agree panel will leave it for themselves make decision at end.

the LA usually serve it on sendist and you would be copied in - ourscarried on being worked on past the ten day deadline and the final version I think was submitted about 48 hours before but this was by agreement of the tribunal. on the morning the LA conceded lots more namely OT and SALT into parts 2/3 and we were sent out for an hour to try and agree more parts of it which we did. the parts then left unagreed as such were dependent on what placement the panel would the finally agree to - then when we got the decision the statement was attached with the final wording coming via the panel so made my statement pretty damned watertight

agree with the comments though that on the day you don't want to get to bogged down with the working document = if the are still disagreements leave it to the panel to decide as the evidence is heard - it can be a tactic by the LA to try and waste time on the actual hearing day on the working document

1. Once a sentence is underlined (i.e. accepted by both parties) can either party subsequently undo it if they realise they have made a mistake or is an "underline" final once made and cant be undone?

• No, anything can be undone. It's obviously desirable not to.

1. Similarly once a Parent adds a sentence or deletes something and it hasn't been underlined i.e accepted by the LA can they undo this during a subsequent iteration or is a change "final" once made and only "new" items can be introduced?

• Yes, you can delete a proposed change before it is accepted.

1. Who "owns" the WD i.e. has primary responsibility for submitting it to SENDIST? Is it the LA or parent or neither? If it is the LA, what if they refuse to make a 'late' change requested by the parent? Can the parent then submit its own version of the WD to the Tribunal?

• The directions normally require the LA to send the WD 10 days before the hearing. If they don't do it, it makes sense for the parent to do so.

I really wouldn't keep submitting further versions of the WD to the tribunal, it will only irritate them. Ideally people are supposed to aim at achieving the final version by 10 days before the hearing, but in practice it doesn't happen (see below). If you're going to carry on negotiating, someone should turn up at the hearing with the final version and at least 5 copies (three for the panel), one for the other side, one for witnesses).

4.My understanding is that the WD is essentially fluid and flexible and both the LA and the parents can make a change until the hearing date
Is this correct or are changes "frozen" 10 working days before the hearing date? If the latter how can a parent raise any "late" changes missed previously?

• No, the WD shouldn't be frozen. The tribunal welcomes it if people manage to reach further agreement by carrying on negotiating right up to the door of the hearing room.

That said, they would be less happy if the reason the WD has changed is not that the parties have managed to agree a bit more, but because one of them keeps thinking of new things and trying to get them in. Obviously no-one's infallible, but I heard about a fairly obsessive parent who just couldn't leave it alone, kept poring over all the reports and constantly adding bits into the WD, playing around with the wording and arguing about things they had already agreed. The panel was not at all impressed and specifically commented adversely on it in their eventual decision.

We had zilch. Tribunal ruled that the LA had to produce a WD by 5pm on a particular day. Using the final statement as version 1, which I crossed out in its entirety, I helpfully wrote parts 2 and 3 for the LA and submitted my version to them 2 days before the tribunal deadline - they are never early. Every single word was a direct, referenced quote to either an LA or an Indi report (about 10). The LA didn't know where to start and so left it pretty much as it was

But also because our LA conceded by lunchtime (we didn't get started until 11) there was very little debate on the day. This has not been the experience of a lot here.

Many thanks to all for your helpful responses. Much appreciated.